Surgical versus conservative treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(11):226 Dan Med J. 2012 Jul;59(7):A4457This systematic review identified 5 studies (four RCTs and one cohort study: total of 365 patients for all studies) that assessed which treatment modality - surgical or conservative - was the optimal treatment for acute, displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Results indicated that the surgical treatment led to a better functional outcome (measured with the Constant score) and lower mal- and non-union rates compared to conservative treatment. However, clinical relevance of the observed functional benefits needs to be considered before a definitive conclusion can be made regarding best treatment options.
Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?
Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?
Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?
Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?
Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?
Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?
Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?
Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?
Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?
How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?
Oui = 1
Incertain = 0,5
Non pertinent = 0
Non = 0
L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.
4/4
Introduction
3/4
Accessing Data
1/4
Analysing Data
1/4
Results
2/4
Discussion
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.
Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?
In the past five years, there has been a major shift towards primary surgical treatment of acute, displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. However, there has been a lack high quality compelling evidence to support this shift in treatment, and a concern has been raised that primary surgical intervention may lead to overtreatment. Additionally, commonly used shoulder scores have yet to be validated for patients with clavicle fractures. This study aimed to investigate treatment indication for this type of fracture based on the current literature available.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
Which treatment modality - surgical or conservative - for acute, displaced midshaft clavicle fractures would lead to better functional outcomes and lower non-union rates?
- In the four studies that compared surgical to conservative treatment, the Constant scores were significantly greater at measure points in the surgical group. A difference in the Constant score of ten points or more has been considered clinically relevant, only one study met this difference at 1 year follow-up.
- A comparison between two operative methods (Ferran et al), intramedullary nailing and plate fixation, found higher Constant scores in the nailing group at all measure points during follow-up (but were found statistically insignificant at the one-year follow-up).
- Three studies reported 100% union in all of the patients who underwent surgical intervention with the lowest union rate being 96% for a surgical intervention. Union in the conservatively treated groups was lower than in the surgery treated groups ranging from 68%-96%.
- Complication rates were lower in the surgically treated group (28%) than those treated conservatively (47%).
- The majority of complications involved prominent hardware causing soft tissue irritation (approximately 26% of all plate-related complications); wound infection (16%) and hardware failure (16%) were other frequent complications.
- The most predominant complication displayed in the conservatively treated group was symptomatic malunion, where it accounted for 67% (40/60) of the complications.
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
The results indicated that surgical treatment of acute, displaced midshaft clavicle fractures led to better functional outcomes and lower mal- and non-union rates than patients receiving conservative treatment. However, clinical relevance of the observed functional benefits still needs to be determined.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
The evidence currently suggests that operative treatment provides slight improvements in functional scores and union rates. There is still a lack of definitive evidence to definitively conclude that primary surgical treatment yields superior results. Future studies should focus more on patients at high risk of non-union as they may benefit more from operative treatment. Additionally, validation of the shoulder outcome scores commonly employed to assess the functional outcome of clavicle fracture treatment needs to be done.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
